Tom Fazio and "Anti-Strategy"

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom;

Perhaps Rustic Canyon is a screaming bargain in southern Cal, but I'm sure there are plenty of $35 courses in Nebraska, and TD is priced "within market" for vacationers to the Jersey shore.

So, is that it?  Bargain basement prices and a "good course"?

Perhaps I'm making the classic mistake of overestimating the "fun factor" in the tastes of the average golfer.  Because, to me it seems that subconsciouly, one understands good strategy implicitly, whether they realize it or not, and calls it things like "fun".  

[WilliamWang]

i cannot explain the reason behind the success of the courses you mention; however, i will say that many new courses do well initially on hype/marketing.  whether they continue to do well is another story.  perhaps tom h.'s explanation is valid.

as far as "average" golfers, don't most golfers begin thinking more about strategy as they become better golfers.  i think scratch and single digit handicappers are much more likely to think strategically than your average 17 handicap or the masses of golfers who don't even keep handicaps.  the reason being that they are simply trying to keep their game together as they go around the course.  they certainly have no consistency to be able to say that they want to hit to point X and then consistently hit it there.  IMO, one of the hallmarks of being a strategic golfer is the ability to be at least somewhat consistent in direction/distance you hit the ball.

[THuckaby2]

Mike, perhaps I am just too cynical here.  I remain convinced, however, that "fun" for the average golfer still equates to pretty waterscapes, carts with GPS, good looking beverage cart girls.  Perhaps at the courses you mention the "strategy" is indeed somehow digested, but that again ain't the reason golfers are flocking to these courses.   Price Rustic Canyon at $100 and people will flock back over to Lost Canyons, thank you very much, for the "amenities" and service.  Price Wild Horse at $75 and it would be a ghost town... I have no knowledge of New Jersey, take your word for it there, but again, methinks you are giving the "average golfer" WAY too much credit.

TH

[WilliamWang]

mike-  you mention the word "taste" of which there is no accounting for.  i played back creek in delaware with a fellow who loves the course, but also loves baywood green.  now, where's the consistency in having an aesthetic sense or "taste" in this example.  i have played with many folks who are just like this fellow with tastes that are contradictory and seemingly at odds.

[Matt_Ward]

Mike Cirba:

The average golfer is like the average person who goes to a "fancy" restaurant -- they're looking at the curtains, the silverware and all the unrelated "food" items. The success of many TF designs is, as you mentioned, in providing "the look" which really excites the ignorant masses who really care more for the periphery and style than the real gist of strategy.

Most golfers want to be "wowed" -- simple as that and TF does it as good as any architect around. In simple terms -- many people really don't "get it." The world of GCA is clearly different than the one the golf masses occupy.

I do agree with Will that until a person develops a real appreciation of the game does the real semblance of "strategic values" become appreciated and valued.

The key for TF is his ability to be "perceived" as an architect of the highest order. That perception makes him the man who developers seek out first because his product does sell well. I also believe that just because something sells well doesn't mean it will appreciate in value years from now.

Huck's point is a good one and it's a reason why "fast food" still maintains the market share it does from the masses. Change the greens by a few pesos and most of the hordes go elsewhere no matter how good the "strategic" vision is or isn't.

[Tim Weiman]

Mike Cirba:

Like Matt Cohn, I have my doubts about the "average" golfer and "strategy".

I don't play or travel much these days, but during the summer months I try to get in nine holes once a week down at my local muni which is one of the busiest courses in Ohio.  It's a great place to meet the "average" golfer, I think.

What always stands out for me is how difficult the game really is, how much they really struggle to execute simple shots when there isn't even an once of "strategy" involved.  Their games simply haven't evolved to the point where they can consider such things.  For many such folks, it may never happen!

The Fazio formula of playability and aethetics simply makes sense for a very large percentage of the golfing public.  During my years of living in Southern Califfornia, I played the Pelican Hill courses maybe ten times.  Not once did I ever hear anyone complain about "strategy".  Far from it, they loved the place.  They were just happy to be there.  Compared to another day in the office, it was a grand slam home run.

I still haven't met that many golfers who actually care about golf architecture.  Create a beautiful environment and you will make a lot of people happy.

So, I've reached the point where I'm bored with the "Fazio bashing" one frequently hears at GCA.  It seems disconnected with the reality of golf in America.  The average guy simply likes courses with strong visual appeal and probably always will.  The Fazio guys - and their sponsors - know that.

If I sound like I'm suggesting its wrong to push for more, I really don't mean that.  I'd just enjoy more reports about the work of people we really admire, than endless rounds of the same complaints about Fazio.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tim;

I hate bashing too.

Especially bashing that does not point out specific examples, or offer thought-out reasons why criticism is being offered.

In this case, I didn't even think I was being critical, per se.  I often hear that Tom Fazio courses have no strategy, and after playing my 11th of his courses this weekend, had sort of what I believed to be a revelation.  It wasn't "no strategy", it was the exact opposite of what has been known as "classic strategy", in many ways I was shocked at how consistently he approached things.  I think that is worthy of discussion and it's led to a good question on another thread by Jim Kennedy asking if it's our commonly accepted thinking that a long drive that successfully challenges a hazard should routinely have an open approach.  

There is no question in my mind that Tom Fazio DOES have an architectural philosophy, and that it is somewhat at odds with what many here believe.  Still, I see no reason that we can't discuss how that philosophy differs, and what the plusses and minuses and distinctions are.  I believe I compared a hole from Huntingdon Valley with one from the new Fazio course by way of illustration.  

He is the most popular architect practicing today, and his successful reputation has led to him becoming the "go to guy" for redesign work on the Augusta's, Merion's, Pine Valley's, Oakmont's, Quaker Ridge's, Winged Foot's, Riviera's, and so on.  Beyond that, he holds the significant majority of "Best New" courses on various lists, so it's hard to just focus on the work of designer's "we like", and try to discuss positive things in a vacuum.

All of that being said, the majority of his courses I've played have been good to very good, and I've never considered myself as someone who lumps architects into "like" and "don't like" categories.  I DO believe that his "batting average" has dropped significantly in recent years, because I recall a Tom Fazio who wouldn't take on more than 6 projects at a time because in his own words, he couldn't do appropriate justice to any of them, that way.  

I don't see how this is "disconnected from the reality of golf in America".  This IS the golf in America, to a large extent.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Tom Fazio is building a new course down the road from me. The developers came by to show the plans and from the details it looks to be anything but anti-strategic. Time will tell.

I find that the "average" golfer we speak about is mainly concerned with value for monies spent and ability to score well on the course. These are not the only concerns but represent the two main ones I hear.  Case in point: A league came to my course because of a price($3.00) increase at the course where they had played for umpteen years. They felt the additional money did not reflect additional service. It was not tied to the condition of the course or its strategic merits.

After the first few weeks of play there was much grumbling in their ranks. Our Raynor course required a more sophisticated level of play than they were used to, causing much higher scores from the group. They almost returned to the original course but stayed here because they got a better level of service (for $3.00 less) and were made to feel welcome.

They have since realized that the challenges here make for a better experience than at the relatively flat course they used to play, although if we were to go up $3.00 they would probably return to the original course.  

[JakaB]

This anti-strategy crap is boring and hardly deserves an answer but now that I see its ugly tenicles finding its way onto other threads I will reply...The Fazio course I will play this Thursday will play at 6800 yds and depending on the wind conditions and pin placements will only absolutely require me to hit driver on two holes.   Holes 1,3,4,8,10 and 14 all contain turboe boosts that can be taken advantage of by hitting a three wood draw along side a fairway bunker or water hazard...these boosts will add from 20 to 40 yds when compared to a drive down the middle of the fairway...hole 2, 12 and 15 require me to hit 3 wood because I am not long enough to achieve the rewards of a perfect drive.  I have hit driver on each of these holes as I have also hit driving iron depending on my mood and selected pin placements which sometimes are difficult enough you just gotta give it all you got...when a member chooses what club he will hit off of the tee based on pin placement is it strategy or overconfidence... these are just the options off of the tee for a person who will play 75 rounds at the same Fazio course during a year....when I first played the course I hit driver most every hole...as my guests do now...and seldom beat me...subtle advantages don't magically appear as I approach a new tee...its not anti-strategy its anti-experience.

[Tim Weiman]

Mike Cirba:

Apologies if my comments sounded a bit harsh.

In private discussion, Tommy and I have talked about the difference between threads about a single course and threads about an architect.  You mentioned a new Fazio course, but didn't identify the name.  So, I guess I reacted by assuming we were in for another round of Fazio bashing.

[George Pazin]

JakaB -

Why don't you tell us more about this Fazio course? Maybe a new thread with some hole descriptions...

[Mike_Cirba]

Tim;

I didn't want to single out this particular course for a number of reasons (mostly because I was concerned about negative perceptions of the term "anti strategy", when I truly wanted to discuss the somewhat distinctive architectural philosophy in evidence), but I will tell you that it's the second brand-new Tom Fazio course I've played in two years that shared this design similarity.

My apologies , as well, if my reply sounded overly-sensitive, but I truly don't like to "lump" architects, and go to every new course by EVERY architect hoping to find something worthwhile, and even approaching "greatness" at times.  I don't go there looking for stones to throw.  
 
JakaB;

That sounds like an excellent, well-thought out golf course that you should be happy to be a member of.  I'm glad your experiences there have been rewarding ones.  

I understand that the architect also spent a great deal of time onsite during construction, and it seems clear that the course benefitted greatly from those personal touches.

I hope to see it someday.  

[JakaB]

Tim,

I don't know why you would white wash this...it is Fazio bashing in the worst way...pandering to the newbies about a subject that is so poorly defined that it can't be defended.  Strategy changes exponetially in relation to the skill level of a golfer resulting in idle internet chat clowded by inuendo and opinion...fortunately the lack of substance from the newbies is so refreshing and uncomprimising that pandering to an emptry trough will only mine hollow coal.   I miss the passion of ignorance that one prevailed on this site before it became almost famous.

[Mike_Cirba]

JakaB;

I'm sorry that all you see in this thread is "bashing in the worst way" and "pandering to the newbies".

I just went back through it, and didn't see a single "newbie" name contributing on this one, so I'm not sure what that's all about.

As far as bashing, I thought I had made a reasonable case of pointing out what I saw as clear philosophical differences in approach from what many here think of as classic "strategic design".  The continuous thread running through the course seemed to be that the further one played away from the hazards, the more advantageous the position for the next shot.    

I believe I also said that of the Fazio courses I've played, almost all were "good" to "very good".  I'd hardly call that a blanket condemnation by any stretch.

Because this is the second new course in a row by the architect that had that theme (I considered the first as possibly an aberration), I thought it worthy of discussion.  

I'm sorry you feel differently.

[GeoffreyC]

JakaB

This thread is not about bashing Fazio, its about trying to understand if there is any rational reason for the seemingly purposeful lack of typical strategic elements in this golf course.  It really was from the bizarro world if I remember my Superman comics correctly   .

I enjoyed Victoria National quite a bit when I visited last fall.  Its quite a good golf course.  For nearly the same amout of money spent, this course isn't in the same league. Its built on a fantastic property that could easily have been utilized better.  

Would you have been happier if Mike jsut strted the discussion without mentioning that it was a Fazio design?

[JakaB]

Mike,

Pandering to the newbies was just an example of the passion of my ignorance...it was over the top as it pertains to you and can now be read with some regret...oops.  

[Mike_Cirba]

JakaB;

No need for regret.  Your challenging words helped me to  state my thoughts more succinctly (i.e. "the further one played from the hazards, the more advantageous the position"), and hopefully more credibly, as well.  

Without passion, we'd just be engaging in "idle Internet chat", devoid of innuendo and opinion, don't you think?    

[Tim Weiman]

JakaB:

I'm not trying to white wash the subject of Fazio bashing, but do prefer to maintain some civility in the dialogue.

Mike apparently wants to discuss this topic without citing specific examples from the Fazio course he just played. I disagree with Mike's approach, but don't want to chop his head off just because we see things differently.

My real concern is defending Golfclubatlas not the Fazio organization. I prefer to do this by telling Mike why I disagree without getting mean spirited in the process.

FYI, I share your view that our discussion about Fazio and strategy (or lack thereof) is sometimes overdone.  At times it comes across as merely repeating a political correct line ("Fazio courses have no strategy").

But, that doesn't mean Fazio (or any other architect) can't be questioned for the design of any hole or course. The important thing is for the writier to cite specific examples to support whatever point of view he is expressing.  By electing NOT to cite examples from the course he just visited, I think Mike weakened the point he was trying to make.  His point may still be valid, but he just hasn't provided sufficient evidence, at least not to my mind.

I would prefer Mike do what I've done in the case of Sand Ridge. Take #3, for example, a par five that somehow seems to get me.  More often than not I play a poor approach shot and make bogey when par really shouldn't be that difficult. But, here we find an almost text book case of what makes people criticize Fazio on the subject of "strategy".

There is nothing wrong with the tee shot. What is missing is an interesting second shot. The design flaw, in my opinion, lies with bunker placement. Quite a few "frame" the fairway for the second shot, but they don't seem to come into play very often. Superintendent Jim Roney has told me that his crew shares my feeling.

Rather than frame the hole, I would have preferred creating a mine field in the middle of the fairway and create an incentive to flirt with the mines by shaping the green complex accordingly.

I don't mind anyone coming to my home club and offering such criticism. What turns me off is general comments without providing the detail to back up the point of view being expressed. Too often that simply becomes "bashing", an exercise we learn nothing from.

Golf architecture is an art form. Intelligent criticism can only help, in my opinion. Given all the political senstivities, you won't find criticism being expressed in other forums (e.g., TV networks, the Golf Channel, leading magazines, etc.). So, I hope we will always find it here at Golfclubatlas. Anyone should feel free to fire away as long as they provide sufficent detail to back up their case. When they do, GCA's reputation is enhanced. When people don't, our reputation suffers.

[JakaB]

Geoffrey,

I am suspect about all topics concerning a lack of strategy at any given course...I don't think anyone can define strategy outside of their own game or outside of a given moment that may influence decisions.   We talk alot about playing the right set of tees...but does that mean we pick a set where we can carry the fairway bunkers or a set where a good drive carries into a fairway bunker.   I prefer to play where I can reach the bunkers but not carry them...and in this case I wonder the accuracy of an argument that says its poor design to hit a shot away from the hazard...remaining in the fairway which gives the best angle to the green.   I'm just guessing that the course in question has a large number of tee choices and maybe you and Mike played the course a little short for your skill level.   It might be better called modern strategy instead of anti-strategy which in the hands of a newbie may contaminate fewer minds.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tim;

Perhaps you missed the following in my original post;

"A good example of this is the 4th hole I played of his the other day.  It is an uphill par four of 410 yards, with land sloping from left to right, and the hole turning that way.  On the right inside corner of the dogleg are two nasty bunkers, and further right is death."  

"However, if one challenges those bunkers succesfully, they are left with an oblique angle of approach which is full carry over a very deep bunker."  

"If one bails away from the trouble on their drive, they are left with an open approach, albeit slightly longer."

"So it went all day.  I was left wondering if this isn't perhaps a purposeful style of Fazio's, and perhaps somewhat original in concept, whether you agree with it or not."

Geoffrey later mentioned the 9th hole, and said that he was sure I'd never challenge the bunker on the left side again.  I'll explain what he meant.

The 9th hole is a 370 yard par four, moving slightly right to left.  On the inside corner of the turn is a nasty bunker, and the left side is wholly fraught with trouble, as a wetlands hazard is further left of the bunker running almost the length of the hole.  There is plenty of room on the right to bail out, and friendly containment walling on the far right off the fairway to direct balls back into the fairway if they bail too far (which Geoffrey took advantage of ) to the right.  

At the green, the wetlands snake in front of the green, and the green is oriented completely to be played to from the far right side of the fairway.  In fact, there is a deep bunker front left, and the green is VERY shallow and oblique approached from the left hand side.

Visually, the hole would suggest just the opposite.  It would seem that challenging the left side successfully should result in some type of reward.  I hit the ball very well, barely carrying the bunker down an aggressive route, and was left with a 70 yard approach that would have required Mickelsonian short game skills.  Geoffrey, on the other hand, after one of his rare poor drives that was pull hooked off the containment wall on the right, was left with the optimum angle, green depth, etc.  

It left us scratching our heads at why anyone would ever play the hole in any manner but safely away from the trouble.  

I could provide many more examples, starting with the 1st hole, but this is the type of stuff we saw all day long that made me think that Fazio's design philosophy is quite different from classic strategic dictums, and hence, this post.

I agree with the rest of what you wrote.    

[Mike_Cirba]

JakaB;

I like to play tee markers where a good drive will just reach the fairway hazards, and on many courses that's the back tees.  However, we played one set up at about 6750 yards (7152 from the back), but the problem wasn't so much that we were driving over all the trouble (the only bunker I carried was the one from the ninth), but simply that the green orientations almost without fail were setup to reward shots played completely away from trouble on the tee.  

[Tim Weiman]

Mike:

I must of tuned out after not seeing what course you were referring to.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tim;

Sometimes, discretion on the part of the "guest" is the best gentlemanly conduct, especially when others are involved.  I trust you understand.

Please Email me offline if you are interested.  

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Sorry Tim and John, I have to disagree with the Fazio-bashing thing. there hasn't been a serious Fazio bash here as of yet, and I haven't bashed a single course of his in many moons. this topic, especially with Mike Cirba's detail are viable discussion to the art whether you like Fazio or not. Lets not forget that to mention that you are both members of private Fazio clubs, albeit very respectable ones.

John, that turbo boost you speak of wouldn't happen to be part of a containment mound would it?

Matt, I'm interested in knowing where you get your numbers regarding strategy. Personally I think this is an issue of placing esthetics and photodynamics ahead of strategy and fun. Tom Huckaby speaks that he thinks if Rustic Canyon were a $100.00 course, it would quickly scare the people back to Lost Canyons. well Tom, I have got news for you. The people out at Lost Canyons don't care what they spend for golf. Even more signifcant, they are all making it a point to play Rustic Canyon as much as they can because of the fun and challenge, not because of the glamour which is quickly disappating as the fore caddies are now almost gone, as well as the fact that anyone can get a good time at Lost Canyons on the weekend. Also, I hear that the curbside service of putting your club on a cart is over-rated experience. If you look even further, you will find that Lost Canyons is not in the best of financial shape. People are staying away in the droves.

The fact is Tom, whether you liked Rustic Canyon or not, it is proving that you don't have to have all of the other BS to make it a GREAT course, you have to have fun and exciting challenges to make one realize that it isn't just another new golf course. this is why Rustic canyon is so different for those who play it for the first time. Ask David Moriarty if you don't believe me.

I have talked to a lot of people playing Rustic Canyon that I don't even know. There is not one I can say that didn't like it. In fact, they are enamored with it.

And also, I think YOU have to PLAY the course instead of a quick trip around it in a golf cart. This simply is a golf course that can be studied and played over and over and develop all sots of ideas on how to play this great game--just ask Fred Couples and Steve Pate. (who know has a reknewed vigor for the Game because of the STRATEGY Rustic Canyon offers.)

As far as publicized, Rustic Canyon has spent money only with LA/Orange County Golf Magazines (a freebie mag) People in Orange County or even So. LA County haven't even heard of the course because they don't want to frequent all the way out to Ventura County. as David Moriarty, David Kelly, Lynn Shackelford, Daryl Cluster and myself can attest, thisis a good thing. It leaves us more room for a starting time and faster round!

Put Ed Getka in there while you are at it.

[THuckaby2]

Easy there Emperor.  I never meant to say anything detrimental to the beloved Rustic Canyon.  I truly and fully believe it is a wonderful golf course in every way.  

But I also do believe the price and the newness is what is drawing people in (FOR NOW), more than any "strategy" there, anyway.  THAT was my point.

The "experience" at Lost Canyons is indeed valuable to a lot of people.  The fact the Sky course just made Golf Mag's Top 100 You Can Play list is gonna draw lots in also.  This is undeniable, regardless of what you, I, or anyone in this discussion group thinks... Service and rankings mean way, way more than "strategy", to the daily-fee-paying golfer.  Always have, always will.

Given the lack of amenities at Rustic (for now), the lack of ranking (for now), raise that price to equal that at Lost Canyons and where do people play?  Come on Tommy, be honest here.  They play the course with the ranking and the amenities.  That's it, nothing more, nothing less.

It's a silly hypothetical and that's ALL it is.  Again, I mean no disrespect to this wonderful golf course.  This is more of a statement on the horrendous tastes and priorities of today's average golfer, that's it.  That was all I was trying to say.

So can I still play Rustic Canyon if and when I get back down there?  

Wow, you'd have thought I said NOTRE DAME SUCKS!!!  There, I said it.  Is the war on, Emperor?

FIGHT ON!

TH

ps - I too shall be coming to SoCal within the next two months and I intend to play Rustic and/or LACC North, depending on time available - I would LOVE to have you join me for one or both. Do check your email...

[Tags:]

Tags: